Boy, you sure put all of us in our places! Are you the “that’s gotta hurt” guy of the of the blog world? (That’s a Seinfeld reference, if you didn’t know.)

Conversation on divergent points of view is always valuable. Must every conversation result in a changed opinion in order for it to have value? What a ridiculous premise.

Perhaps you shouldn’t bother wasting your time reading conversational threads. I’d hate for you to spend your entire life feeling dirty.

Do psychic powers exist? I don’t think they do, but that’s because for decades all sorts of tests have been run, and when they are done correctly there is no indication that anyone has any sort of psychic ability at all.

Asking for a citation for a statement like this is absurd. Here’s why. I’m sure Phil has come across many well done studies that have failed to show evidence of psychic powers in his lifetime, but I doubt he’s kept a running list. I’m also guessing he’s busy, and doesn’t want to waste a couple of hours tracking them all down to satisfy a few people who like to express doubt about things, but are to lazy to track down the information themselves. So why don’t you get off your behind, and take the time to inform yourself about the subject before unleashing gems like This thread makes one lose one’s faith in science.

That you’re all going to believe or disbelieve the same thing you did at the start of the conversation. Time and effort well spent. I feel dirty for having read most of it.

You began your first post with a lame cheap shot at the posters here. Amazing started off by making ridiculous false assumptions about posters here, and then accused skeptics of being in it for the money. So spare us the whining.

No need to throw hundreds of words at the issue. Just cite a few tests please, or we will quite reasonably assume that you can’t.

Shane was kind enough to do this. So what do you do? You change the subject.

If you have honest questions or doubts, and you express them in a polite manner, people will be polite back. If you act like a pompous idiot, we’ll have a little fun.

“But, as a scientist, I would expect to see those results independently reproduced and then peer-reviewed to ensure the research was conducted properly. After that, I would consider psychic abilities scientifically valid. “

What complete and total hogwash!

First of all, don’t tell us the Randi test isn’t acceptable but then refuse to provide reasons because “you don’t feel like it”. I’m just going to take your word for it? Back up your claim or don’t bother to make it. You took the time to write the rest of the evasive drivel you wrote, why not take the time to expand on the only point you make that is of any interest to this conversation? So unless you can give your “whole host of reasons”, you may as well not bother making the statement.

1. Let’s say someone passed the Randi test, then would everyone reading this (a)immediately, forever and irrevocably start believing in PSI phenomena, or (b)turn around and start second guessing the testing procedures, claim “fraud,” or ascribe the results to luck? The question being: How probative would a Randi test actually be in the minds of the readers here? Are people so trapped in their dogma that they would doubt the results of their own test?

Classic. Look at what you did. You pre-supposed a scenario, invented an unsupported response, and then had the gall to criticize the response YOU created! Unreal. To actually answer your question from the perspective of a skeptic, I would answer this way: I would treat the results the same way I would treat the results of ANY scientific study. The Randi challenge is set up to be performed using the principals of the scientific method. If someone were to pass the test, I would then consider the possibility of psychic abilities to be real, and I would gladly see the money handed over to the person who passed the test. But, as a scientist, I would expect to see those results independently and then peer-reviewed to ensure the research was conducted properly. After that, I would consider psychic abilities scientifically valid. You know, that’s the way science works.

This is a fully moot point however, as so far this has never come close to happening, not in Randi’s challenge nor in any other truly scientific study. You’d think if this stuff were real, that wouldn’t be the case. But as I’ve heard before, psychics just don’t test well.

2. If the PSI effect is small and variable, as some say, then there would seem to be much better ways to test for small and variable phenomena than a Randi test.

Well, the problem with that statement is that it’s a supposition made only by supporters of psychic abilities. Science doesn’t need to accept that supposition. Science needs only to test a claim in a scientific manner on its merits alone. The problem with what you are saying is simply that one could then go and adjust the testing criteria in varying degrees until it matches up with an already demonstrated result. That is not science. That’s the exact opposite of science. That’s starting with the the answer and then adjusting the questions so they match the answer. That’s how religion works… not how science works.

Having reviewed your comments, JEdward, I find your argument horribly weak.

Several of you are completely missing the point regarding the “burden of proof.” Shane went so far as to apologize for posting some references by saying:

“Lastly I must apologies (sic) to my fellow skeptics because I know the burden of proof is on the woo heads but I’ve posted these citations because the woo heads seem to think they don’t exist.”

This entirely misses the point and is, therefore, wrong.

Let me rephrase the statement that we were trying to discuss, and modify it a bit:

“Do cougars exist in the North Carolina mountains? I don’t think they do, but that’s because for decades all sorts of wildlife surveys have been conducted, and when they are conducted correctly there is no indication that any cougar exists in the North Carolina mountains at all.”

Now, if you read that statement, and asked the author to provide you references to those wildlife surveys, you wouldn’t view it as an acceptable answer for the author to tell you that the burden of proof of showing the existence of cougars is on you, and they are not at all obliged to provide references to any of the surveys. You weren’t talking about the existence of cougars in the first place – you were talking about the existence of the surveys. And if the author called you a woo head, that wouldn’t be helpful either.

At least Shane provided a few references. Of course, one of them involves animals (Woof Woof), another is particularly interesting because it is the highly controversial Milton/Wiseman stuff which isn’t really a “test,” but there is no point in disecting each of them here.

And as a final point the Randi thing isn’t acceptable for a whole host of reasons which, frankly, I don’t have the time or desire to go into here, but I’ll say two quick things about it:

1. Let’s say someone passed the Randi test, then would everyone reading this (a)immediately, forever and irrevocably start believing in PSI phenomena, or (b)turn around and start second guessing the testing procedures, claim “fraud,” or ascribe the results to luck? The question being: How probative would a Randi test actually be in the minds of the readers here? Are people so trapped in their dogma that they would doubt the results of their own test?

2. If the PSI effect is small and variable, as some say, then there would seem to be much better ways to test for small and variable phenomena than a Randi test.

Signing off now….

To say that science hasn’t taken the subject seriously is even more bunk than the possibility that psychic powers exist. I can allow for the possibility that psychic powers exist, but to pretend that science has ignored the subject is pure hogwash. It might even qualify as impure hogwash.